By Any Other Name, It's Gay Marriage

OPINION

The idea that a presidential candidate can support civil unions for homosexuals and avoid the accompanying negative political baggage of gay marriage is a liberal fantasy.

That is the Democratic strategy, hoping voters see the two as more than just semantically different.

Their presidential candidates are trying to please the gay community and supporters of homosexual marriage, while not turning off the much larger bloc of voters who consider the idea unacceptable.

My instincts tell me that civil unions' political downside is only slightly less than for gay marriage.

A joint survey by Stan Greenberg, a Democrat who was Bill Clinton's 1992 pollster, and Bill McInturff, who runs a major GOP consulting firm, proves the point.

The two, working for National Public Radio, came up with the numbers. McInturff, in a memo to his clients, expands on just how powerful the issue can be for President Bush.

Interestingly, many whom the issue could move into the GOP column are otherwise likely Democratic voters.

Homosexuals are part of the Democratic coalition. A candidate opposed to gay rights is as unlikely to win that nomination as would one who advocated abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy become the GOP standard-bearer.

But Democrats understand that, by a roughly 2-to-1 margin, voters overall oppose gay marriage and want to avoid the issue like the plague. Yet their core constituency requires them to take a stand.

Thus, the understanding between homosexual-rights activists and Democratic candidates that they will advocate the creation of civil unions, rather than gay marriage.

Civil unions are the status Vermont confers on homosexual couples, and carry the same legal rights as married couples enjoy regarding health insurance, inheritances, next-of-kin status, etc. Other states, mostly on the two coasts, are considering a similar course.

However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage there and told state lawmakers to set up the legal mechanism for carrying out their directive.

Gay-rights friends and foes expect once that occurs, residents of other states will wed in Massachusetts, return home and try to have their nuptials recognized under the U.S. Constitution, which requires that states recognize the legal proceedings of the others.

Congress in 1996 passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which said states do not have to recognize gay unions from other jurisdictions.

Bush, in his State of the Union speech, said he would back a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage if "activist judges" begin "defining marriage by court order." That is a reference to his fear a federal judge could throw out the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that it violates the Constitution.

The McInturff/Greenberg poll and research about attitudes in the past 15 years found that there has been an increase in support for gay rights, although much of it is confined to self-identified Democrats.

But on the marriage/civil-union question, the pollsters found that a candidate who supported either would turn off voters.

By 56-30 percent, voters oppose gay marriage.

By a 49-42 percent margin, they oppose civil unions. And when told those unions would provide rights to health insurance, pensions and hospital-visiting privileges, voters split 45-45 on the civil-unions question.

The key results, however, came when voters were asked how they would vote for president between Bush and a generic Democrat. Another sample of voters was then asked the same question but told that Bush opposed and the Democrat favored civil unions.

Bush has not taken a stand on civil unions, but he is widely assumed to oppose them.

Bush initially held just a 46-42 percent lead against the generic Democrat.

But when voters were told the Bush and the Democratic position on civil unions, his lead mushroomed to 51-35 percent.

The 12-point overall swing was greater among Republican subgroups such as Southerners and married men. But the swing to Bush when voters were told about the civil-union stance was also larger than 12 points among self-described independents, union households and even those who said they backed Al Gore in 2000.

Democrats and gays will surely search for a more effective way to package the issue.

But they need to realize that not only conservatives and Republicans see civil unions as a form of gay marriage and, therefore, as unacceptable. So do millions of voters who are normally part of the Democratic coalition.